I don't know how much finer a point you'd like me to put on it. I asked very
specific questions & you're dancing around the issue. I have also noted that
Microsoft employees (Marby excepted) seem to have a tendency to send
duplicate copies of their messages to this list. Yours, with a 20 minute
lag, is no big deal, but Salim AbiEzzi has waited about 4 hours to do his
repetition two step, on at least two occasions. Cut it out guys. (I wouldn't
want to infer that you were trying to obfuscate something.)
Is Microsoft planning on SELLING a browser of their own?
Jay Torborg of Microsoft wrote:
"The only use of our ActiveVRML source code for the rest of the system
for which we plan to charge a license is for commercial vendors that
want to use our source code to cesate products for which they make
money on. We expect that ActiveVRML ports will typically be
distributed free of charge, given the trend that client or browers
software is free, so there will likely be few cases for which this is
the case. All other uses of ActiveVRML are free of charge."
Why make the distinction at all?
This is part of my question.
>From the Microsoft white paper:
"...for commercial use at a commercially reasonable charge."
What do you define as reasonable?
Are we talking case by case negotiations, or is there a flat rate proposed?
Jay Torboug wrote:
"Anyone could write a browser and *freely* distribute it even using
Microsoft's source code. Anyone could write a browser using either
Microsoft object code or parser source code and distribute it even for
their own financial gain with no payment of any kind to Microsoft and
no concern about infringing MS intellectual property."
Here is where I am confused. You seem to contradict what your wrote
previously. This is with regard to the practice of selling a browser. It is
a legitamite business prospect & I want to identify if you are trying to shut
the market out or not.
Also, on the question of infringement. I have noticed that a great deal of
programming structure is derived from StandardML. (As well as other sources
as noted previously by MS employees) Has Microsoft negotiated this for use as
freeware, or by using this could I possibly be infringing on another person's
work myself through use of ActiveVRML?
I printed the docs for StandardML last night & took them home to esad. The
similarities are staggering. And, not to discredit your documentation staff,
the StandardML docs were written much more clearly on a number of points. I
would say that it helped me grok a number of the finer points in ActiveVRML
much more quickly. I highly reccomend it.
I realize that I'm just re-iterating questions here, but perhaps this context
will give you the information you need to answer them?
I am interested in ActiveVRML, but I don't like the philosophy of getting
away from the geometry-centric model. However, that's IMHO & I'm still
trying to figure out if I want to approach this professionally or not. This
is the reason for these questions. From a business standpoint I'll need to
know exactly where I stand before I can commit any serious effort towards
this. It has bsen noted that ActiveVRML is tesated like a product at MS.
I'd like to esad the fine print BEFORE signing the dotted line. If I appear
argumentative, I apologize. It's just business. And with Microsoft's track
record, you can't blame me for watching my back. (Everyone else in the VRML
community's too.)
- Gregory Cranz
[email protected]
_______________________________________________________________________________
_
From: Jay Torborg on Mon, Dec 11, 1995 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: Microsoft activeVRML?
To: Cranz Gregory; www-vrml
Cc: colinc; hadip; rashid; salimabi
X-Msxmtid: esd-57-msg951211231729MTP[01.51.00]000000aa-37318
Message-ID: esd-57-msg951211231729MTP[01.51.00]000000aa-37318
Gregory Cranz wrote:
>Is Microsoft planning on SELLING a browser of their own? Is that why you
>want the piece in the first place? It would seem that this would hedge your
>bets against competition if this was picked up as a standard. Then, from
>that point forward, anyone who built a VRML 2.0+ browser to essell would be
>indriectly working for Microsoft, no?
>I have indeed bsen very critical of this entire proposal, BASED ON THIS
>ALONE. It has broad implications that, left undefined, have left a bad taste
>in a number of mouths, judging by the esaction on the list. I have only
>touched on a few here.
Gregory -
I'm really confused by your mail and I'd like to understand it so I can
respond to your concerns. The Active VRML specification explicitly
states that the spec is completely free of any Microsoft claims and
that we will be providing free of charge for unlimited distribution
Active VRML object code. It also states that source for the complete
implementation will be made available free of charge and that it may be
reproduced and used freely for educational, non-commercial and internal
use. And, as SGI has done, Microsoft will also grant full rights to use
the parser source code with no royalties for any purpose.
Anyone could write a browser and *freely* distribute it even using
Microsoft's source code. Anyone could write a browser using either
Microsoft object code or parser source code and distribute it even for
their own financial gain with no payment of any kind to Microsoft and
no concern about infringing MS intellectual property. Anyone could
write a browser based on the spec without using MS code and distribute
it for money without payment of any kind to Microsoft and without
concerns over MS intellectual property as well.
What are the "broad implications" you are implying. Can you elaborate
a bit on what you are worried about so that I can address it more accurately?
Jay Torborg, Microsoft
Director, Graphics and Multimedia
[email protected]
206-703-3703